Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 25 September 2017 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5673913308A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 02:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.633
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.633 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vijcYiPDuQgB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 02:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3CD61320C9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 02:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id v8P9K1CL010507; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:20:01 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 68A3D2091FE; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:20:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D8D20865C; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:20:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.34.184] (is227335.intra.cea.fr [10.8.34.184]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v8P9K1Rt025448; Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:20:01 +0200
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <D5E8043B.86B21%lee@asgard.org> <E48DDA04-C058-4992-906E-8C8BC0E102AB@consulintel.es> <1BFA3605-4B16-4331-A7BA-3BDECBCA64EC@gmail.com> <85868796-18C7-48F4-BE69-8D50A1F47EF3@jisc.ac.uk> <472CC0F7-73C2-4A21-8F96-BBC966B01B77@employees.org> <de6b9aac-a3cc-0915-77c7-9fb880c3a16a@gmail.com> <20170921223305.B72A8878E716@rock.dv.isc.org> <122454EE-64C5-4768-A6A9-1AD0E872F5F9@employees.org> <2a879713-bfd0-2ba0-cb67-53726f6e1faf@gmail.com> <41c808ef-b2c0-6e74-e61d-e89fcebe5e0a@gmail.com> <FA8911A1-CE3E-40E2-A11F-12303A3B4D1C@asgard.org> <e38bb7d2-1376-e790-8c20-19d54ec6b163@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251025270.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30eddc4a-c2cc-0e6a-9a39-7db255705b16@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:20:01 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709251025270.18564@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/emeum7u7NsyyiARqoIaRKW4nrII>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info - double stack coexistence
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:20:08 -0000


Le 25/09/2017 à 10:28, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> It may also be that we do speculate too much on IPv6-only cellular 
>> networks.  We speculate these are there now, whereas I may speculate 
>> it may not really be the case.  There are some networks that are 
>> IPv6-only-to-end-user yet use GTP-IPv4.
> 
> Are you saying that people from for instance T-Mobile USA saying they're 
> doing IPv6 only GTP

No, I would like to ask T-Mobile USA whether they use GTP-IPv6?  Or 
GTP-IPv4?

[...]

> What do you mean by GTP-IPV4?

I mean GTPU protocol that uses IPv4 addresses, and carries IPv6 packets 
inside; an example packet capture of what I call GTP-IPv4 is the following:
> INBOUND>>>>>  15:47:48:883 Eventid:142004(3)
> GTPU Rx PDU, from [IPv4-address]:2152 to [IPv4-address-2]:2152 (129)
> TEID: 0x80072183, Message type: GTP_TPDU_MSG (0xFF)
> Sequence Number:: NA
> GTP HEADER FOLLOWS:
> [snip]
> GTP HEADER ENDS.
>            Payload protocol: IPv6
> PROTOCOL PAYLOAD FOLLOWS:
> fe80::b9d9:c10a:2c2d:3c3b.546 > ff02::2.546:  [udp sum ok]
> IPv6 Header Follows:
> [snip]
> PROTOCOL PAYLOAD ENDS.


> We're talking about what access service is 
> provided to the customers, and there are several that do IPv6 only GTP. 
> Yes, the GTP packets might be carried over IPv4, but the SERVICE 
> provided to the customer is IPv6 only.

Excuse me, Mikael, but it is little possible to claim "IPv6-only" when 
there is IPv4.  One can call it "IPv6-only SERVICE", but there's still 
IPv4 - so it's an "IPv4-based IPv6-only SERVICE".

>> Actually, from where I look, I see many 'double stack' networks like 
>> these.
> 
> There are plenty of examples of IPv4 only, IPv6 only, and IPv4v6 mobile 
> access networks. It's all being done. What the provider chooses to do 
> often has to do with their equipment vendor supports and how many IPv4 
> addresses they might have. Also operational practices and preferences.

Yes, the operational practices and preferences are very important.

Their consequences too.

Alex